1776 Blog – Centennial Institutehttp://www.ccu.edu/centennial
Think tank for the conservative comebackFri, 09 Dec 2016 11:46:55 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.1Don’t forget border security up northhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/ULM6_HslPDI/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/dont-forget-border-security-north/#respondFri, 09 Dec 2016 11:46:55 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=19059(By Helen Raleigh, Centennial Fellow) December is usually a slow month for any significant policy changes: politicians as well as ordinary folks are getting into a jolly mode. They are probably more concerned about what gifts to get than matters of national security or the economy. This December should be different. Back in June, Canada's

]]>(By Helen Raleigh, Centennial Fellow) December is usually a slow month for any significant policy changes: politicians as well as ordinary folks are getting into a jolly mode. They are probably more concerned about what gifts to get than matters of national security or the economy.

This December should be different. Back in June, Canada’s liberal Prime Minster Justin Trudeau announced that Canada will lift the visa requirement for Mexican visitors as of December 1st, 2016. Currently, Mexicans need to apply for a visa to visit, study or work in Canada. On and after December 1st, Mexicans who want to fly or transit through Canada only need to obtain an Electronic Travel Authorization online, which costs only seven Canadian dollars and takes only a few minutes to complete. It’s good news for law-abiding Mexican citizens, but could present a security challenge to our northern border.

The U.S. and Canada shares the world’s longest border, about 5,500 miles (including Alaska). This long border crosses many sparsely populated terrains and wilderness areas, including mountains and the great lakes. Many sections of the border are unmarked and our current resources for border patrolling are grossly inadequate. Prior to 9/11, only about 340 federal agents patrolled our northern border with Canada. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security increased the number of agents dedicated to our northern border to about 2,200, which still pales in comparison to the 18,600 agents along the U.S. and Mexico border. Technologies such as radar, ground sensors and thermal radiation detectors are also deployed. They are helpful, but insufficient. The sheer span and the remoteness of many parts of the border means scores of sections are not covered by any type of surveillance at all, which makes them havens for illegal crossing from Canada into the U.S.

According to a recent New York Times report, “In 2007, people from the Government Accountability Office managed to cross from Canada into the United States carrying a duffel bag with contents that looked like radioactive material, and they never encountered a law enforcement officer.” Federal border patrol agents admitted to the same Times reporter that they simply have no idea how many people illegally enter into U.S. through the northern borders every day.

But now with a liberal Prime Minster in Ottawa, Canada would lift visa requirement for visitors from Mexico on December 1st. While it is welcome news to law-abiding Mexicans, this unfortunately will make it easier for criminals such as drug dealers and human traffickers to enter into Canada and in turn illicitly enter into the U.S.

In addition, due to Mexico’s weak passport control and considerable corruption, nationals from outside of Mexico, such as Guatemalans, could obtain Mexican passports without difficulty, and then hop on a plane first to Canada and then cross over to the U.S.

Trump, the president-elect, has made securing our southern border with Mexico a signature campaign issue, while saying very little about securing our northern border with Canada. His campaign rhetoric, as well as Canada’s upcoming visa policy change, may push more people to illegally enter the U.S. through our northern border.

As Trump is formulating his immigration policy, he can’t afford to pay little attention to our northern border security. He also needs to be aware that any security measure he takes shouldn’t punish legal commercial activities across the borders. The bilateral trade between Canada and the U.S. is worth at least $2 billion a day, and both countries benefit from it: it has provided many people from both nations with abundance of employment opportunities and increased their living standards. Therefore, a sensible border security policy should make legitimate commercial activities and legal entry as smooth as possible on the one hand; but enhance surveillance and be tough on criminals on the other.

Helen Raleigh owns Red Meadow Advisors, LLC, and is an immigration policy fellow at the Centennial Institute in Colorado. She is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “The Broken Welcome Mat.” Follow Helen on Twitter @HRaleighspeaks, or check out her website: helenraleighspeaks.com.

]]>http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/dont-forget-border-security-north/feed/0http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/dont-forget-border-security-north/How to make American immigration great againhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/VHmbs25ayMY/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/make-american-immigration-great/#respondFri, 09 Dec 2016 11:43:05 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=19056(By Helen Raleigh, Centennial Fellow) There’s no doubt that our nation’s immigration system is broken. It no longer serves our nation’s interests, and has caused anxiety among native-born citizens and immigrant communities alike. We have seen that legal immigrants, who constitute the vast majority of the immigrant community, face long delays and high financial costs

]]>(By Helen Raleigh, Centennial Fellow) There’s no doubt that our nation’s immigration system is broken. It no longer serves our nation’s interests, and has caused anxiety among native-born citizens and immigrant communities alike. We have seen that legal immigrants, who constitute the vast majority of the immigrant community, face long delays and high financial costs due to our very complex and confusing immigration laws. Their experiences offer no motivation for illegal immigrants to participate in the legal immigration process.

Trump won his astounding presidential bid by taking a populist stand on several key issues. His rhetoric on immigration, in particular, stirred emotions on both side of the ideological divide. Now with a Republican controlled U.S. congress, Trump carries the mandate for immigration reform. Before he officially takes office, I have some suggestions.

Don’t Aim For ‘Comprehensive’ Reform

First of all, don’t attempt to reform our immigration system with a single comprehensive reform bill. Our existing system is too complex and touches too many different interest groups. No bill can address all these issues at once. A so-called “comprehensive” bill would, ultimately, be nothing but special interest-influenced outcomes shoveled down lawmakers’ throats. It would exacerbate existing problems and create new ones. Just look at our past experiences with comprehensive reform bills.

Exhibit A: the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform, signed into law in July 2010. The bill has over 2,300 pages. Two nonpartisan agencies—the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office—estimated that we will need to hire 2,600 new full-time federal employees to implement the Act’s 400-plus regulatory mandates. That will cost taxpayers $27 billion. The rule writing and implementation are still ongoing as of 2016.

Yet despite this enormous cost, few people are confident that Dodd-Frank will prevent another 2008-style economic recession. In political newspeak, “comprehensive” is synonymous with “full of loopholes.” A comprehensive bill is so long, no one will read and scrutinize it. Glenn Reynolds, founder of the popular Instapundit.com website, referred to this type of bill as “Christmas trees on which lobbyists and legislators hang their goodies.”

A sensible and principle-based immigration policy would protect our borders, enhance national security, be simple and merit-based, and offer a viable, effective solution to the illegal immigration issue. Instead of another comprehensive immigration reform bill, I would suggest a step-by-step approach—one that will win back the trust and support of the American people, while ultimately reaching an ideal immigration system. What I propose here needn’t happen all at once. Some elements are more easily implemented than others. Some will have broader support than others. I categorize the proposals below based on the difficulty of implementation and the level of support.

Here’s How We Should Improve Border Security

What we should do immediately: Enforce the law. Any individuals who are apprehended crossing the border illegally—no matter their age or whether they traveled as a family unit—should be fingerprinted and deported immediately.

What we should do next: There’s no need to build a wall along the entire U.S. and Mexican border. It will be too costly and ineffective. In addition, Canada will lift visa requirement for Mexican visitors to Canada on December 1st, 2016. So a wall on our southern border won’t stop someone from hopping on an airplane to Canada and crossing the U.S. and Canadian border. I do believe, however, we should build strong fences. We can reinforce existing fences with surveillance cameras in popular entry points, or in areas where the terrain is easy to cross. We should aksi increase border patrols at portions of the border that run across harsh environments. Finally, we should increase cooperation between local police, border patrols, and the National Guard.

What Should We Do About Illegal Immigrants?

What we should do immediately: Make E-Verify mandatory for all employers nationwide. Deport anyone who committed a crime while in the U.S.

What we should do next: Grant temporary working visas to illegal immigrants who are currently employed, have no criminal record, and have paid a fine for their illegal entry. Give their family members who are here and not employed visitor visas. Build a wall around the welfare system by limiting access to U.S. citizens, based on the original wording of “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).”

How To Improve National Security

What we should do immediately: Enhance the screening process for visa applicants. Get rid of political correctness and deploy all sources that are currently available, including social media.

What we should do immediately: Get rid of the visa lottery program and reallocate its 50,000 annual quota to skill-based immigration. Get rid of out-of-date special visa programs.

What we should do next:

For immigration visas: Consolidate all programs into three—skill based, family based, and humanitarian based. Allocate at least 50 percent of the annual visa quota to skill-based immigrants. Establish a point-based system to prescreen skill-based applicants. Reform the investor program. Make family members financially responsible for family-based immigrants. Combine the refugee and asylum-seeker categories into one humanitarian visa. Make an effort to address the refugee issue at its source.

For non-immigration visas: Consolidate all programs into three—work, visitor, and students/scholar. Eliminate the quota for temporary workers and let the market decide what type of workers it needs and how many.

If the Trump administration and the U.S. Congress can follow this step-by-step approach with incremental measurable success, we can make U.S. immigration great again.

Helen Raleigh owns Red Meadow Advisors, LLC, and is an immigration policy fellow at the Centennial Institute in Colorado. She is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “The Broken Welcome Mat.” Follow Helen on Twitter @HRaleighspeaks, or check out her website: helenraleighspeaks.com.

]]>http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/make-american-immigration-great/feed/0http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/make-american-immigration-great/What will we tell our children?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/AA07KEu8dEM/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/will-tell-children/#commentsMon, 05 Dec 2016 03:54:23 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=19019(By Mikayle Jacquot, '76 Blog Contributor) My Facebook feed since around 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 8, has been full of tears and complaints about our President-elect Donald Trump. Many of my close friends and family members have made public statements, giving their condolences to the Muslims, illegal immigrants, and women around the United States as, theoretically,

]]>(By Mikayle Jacquot, ’76 Blog Contributor) My Facebook feed since around 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 8, has been full of tears and complaints about our President-elect Donald Trump. Many of my close friends and family members have made public statements, giving their condolences to the Muslims, illegal immigrants, and women around the United States as, theoretically, their lives are being threatened. As I walked around Chicago a few weekends ago, I saw thousands of people protesting the election of Trump. Many of the protesters were mothers and fathers, pushing their children in strollers down the streets while they protest. Similarly, many of the mothers and fathers that supported Hillary continue to worry about what they will tell their children about how Trump got elected and ruined this nation. What will they tell their children when they realize that, of all people, Donald Trump is our president? How will they explain to their daughters that the woman who could have been the first woman president lost to a “buffoon”? How do we explain to our children that a man who casually speaks of sexual assault, in “locker room talk,” was elected president?

Well, America, just take breath. This is not the first time America has had a president surrounded with scandal. Every generation has grown up surrounded in government scandals. Yes, we will have to explain to our children that Donald Trump was elected to be president and not Hillary Clinton. However, in the past century, our presidents have been surrounded in much more scandal than Donald Trump. In 1922, President Warren Harding was involved in the Teapot Dome scandal, as well as other situations of corruption and bribery. President John F. Kennedy had an extensive black book, including Hollywood stars and his White House staff. FDR locked Japanese-American citizens in internment camps during World War II. He also had a lifelong mistress. Ulysses S. Grant was involved in the Whiskey Ring Scandal, involving bribery and tax evasion.

What did we tell our children when Bush invaded Iraq? What did we tell our children when Bill Clinton got caught in a sex scandal? What did we tell our children when Nixon was impeached because of Watergate? What did we tell our children when FDR locked Japanese-American citizens in internment camps during World War II?

We tell the children that their morality is not based on government. We do not get our morality from the leaders of our nation. We tell our children that morality comes from our worldview and our religion. Whether you are a Muslim, Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, or otherwise, we tell our children that the president does not determine the morality of the nation. As soon as the government determines the morality of the nation, the nation has fallen. We tell our children that the American public made a political decision, not a religious one, when Donald Trump was elected president. We tell our children to make their own decisions, based on the morality they subscribe to, not what our president subscribes to. And while this does not excuse the actions of Donald Trump or any of the presidents before him, it is important to realize that Donald Trump is not the worst scandal this nation has ever seen, and our children will not be marred for their entire lives based on the choice of this nation.

]]>http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/will-tell-children/feed/1http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/will-tell-children/Did Pope Francis just validate China’s godless communist regime?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/e1NjkeYzNGc/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/pope-francis-just-validate-chinas-godless-communist-regime/#respondMon, 05 Dec 2016 03:45:10 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=19011(By Helen Raleigh, Centennial Fellow) According to reports, the Vatican and Communist China have reached an agreement that would end six decades of diplomatic gridlock. While details of the agreement haven’t been officially announced, from what has been leaked to the public, Catholics in China and around the world have reason to be concerned. Catholicism

]]>(By Helen Raleigh, Centennial Fellow) According to reports, the Vatican and Communist China have reached an agreement that would end six decades of diplomatic gridlock. While details of the agreement haven’t been officially announced, from what has been leaked to the public, Catholics in China and around the world have reason to be concerned.

Catholicism has had a long and convoluted history in China. Catholic missionaries traveled to China to spread the words of the gospels as early as the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368). But Italian missionary Matteo Ricci’s arrival in 1582 is often regarded as the official introduction of the Catholic Church to China.

Growth of the church was limited because Chinese emperors wouldn’t accept that there was another “earthly” king (Christ) more “powerful” than them. The imperial rulers of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) banned Catholic missionaries. But after losing the first Opium War (1839-1842), the imperial court was forced to lift their ban on the Catholic Church and granted western missionaries diplomatic privileges as part of the peace treaties with Western powers.

How the Chinese Communist Party Suppressed Christianity

Before the Communists took over China in 1949, it is estimated that there were about three million Catholics in China. And initially, the atheist Chinese government showed a degree of tolerance towards religion in the name of national unity. But leaders were determined to put religion under government control. They subsequently severed ties with the Vatican, kicked out all foreign missionaries, and shut down Churches run by foreign bishops.

In 1951, a Chinese Christian and ally of the Communist Party, Y.T. Wu, initiated the “Three-self Patriotic” movement. He wanted to eliminate foreign influences and create a “made in China” version of Christianity, by promoting “self-governance, self-support, self-propagation.” In 1954, a group of Chinese Christian leaders further aligned with the Communist Party by pledging their support to the government and its socialistic cause. They made it clear that localization of Christianity was the only way to stand up to Western imperialism.

These self-destructive efforts legitimized the government’s control of Christian organizations. In 1957, the government’s Religious Affairs Bureau created “The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association” (CPA or CPCA) to monitor and direct Catholic Church activities in China. The name of CPCA was very telling: demonstrating patriotism was a requirement for religious practitioners. In China then and now, “patriotism” is synonymous with loving the Communist Party. The Chinese government determined that religious belief must put men before God.

But even that was not enough for the Communist regime after a few years. Eventually, leasder exterminated all religions in China, including Catholicism, during the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to1976. Worship sites were destroyed. Many believers were persecuted; some even lost their lives.

Since the 1980s, China’s Christian population has grown as impressively as its economic growth. It’s difficult to know how many Christians are in China today, because the Christian population—especially the Catholics—comes from two parallel systems. One is the official, government-sanctioned and registered church. These churches don’t recognize the Pope’s authority, and accept bishops consecrates by CPCA without the Pope’s approval. The other is the underground Church network, which refuses to register with the government and remains loyal to the Pope. .

Pew research estimates that as of 2010, China is home to approximately 70 million Christians, including 12 million Catholics. That’s about 5 percent of China’s population and 3 percent of the world’s Christian population. Among the 10 countries with the largest Christian population, China ranks seventh.

Pope Francis’ predecessor, Pope John Paul II, once wrote, “(The) curtailment of the religious freedom of individuals and communities is not only a painful experience but is, above all, an attack on man’s very dignity. … (It is) a radical injustice with regard to what is particularly deep in man, what is authentically human.”

Yet Pope Francis seems ready and willing to overlook the Chinese government’s past and current repressive practices in order to reestablish a diplomatic relationship between the Vatican and China. One of his goodwill gestures towards mainland China was to decline an audience with the Dalai Lama in 2014.

Could the Vatican and Beijing Reach an Agreement?

Several months ago, it was revealed that the Vatican and Beijing had reached an initial agreement on the appointment of Catholic ­bishops in mainland China. Pope Francis “would commit to recognize as bishops only those clerics who first win nomination from the Patriotic Association’s bishops conference.”

This agreement is a departure from the Church’s long held belief that “the authority of the Pope to appoint bishops is given to the church by its founder Jesus Christ. It is not the property of the Pope, neither can the Pope give it to others” (Pope Benedict XVI). Yet it seems that Pope Francis is going to do exactly that, subordinating his authority to a repressive communist government.

Catholics in Taiwan are especially concerned: mainland China always demands any country that wants to establish a diplomatic relationship with it must first sever its diplomatic relationship with Taiwan first. So far, the Vatican is the only European country that still has a diplomatic relationship with Taiwan. Catholics in Taiwan are rightfully worried that they will be abandoned by a Pope who is eager to break the diplomatic ice with mainland China.

Pope Francis Should Protect Chinese Christians

While the Vatican hasn’t announced any final official agreement with the Chinese Communist government yet, what has been disclosed so far has made some Chinese Catholics feel a sense of betrayal.

It’s clear that Pope Francis is no Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II joined Margaret Thatcher and President Reagan to defeat Communism. But Pope Francis has joined President Obama in capitulating to oppressive authoritarian regimes like Cuba, all in the name of “openness.” His efforts only lend legitimacy to these regimes, while failing to offer relief to the people they oppress.

Some say that an official agreement between the Vatican and communist China could be announced as early as November 20: Christ the King Sunday, a day to celebrate the all-embracing authority of Christ as King and Lord of all things. Fortunately, it didn’t happen.

All I can do now is to pray: pray that Pope Francis will not put men before God.

Helen Raleigh owns Red Meadow Advisors, LLC, and is an immigration policy fellow at the Centennial Institute in Colorado. She is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “The Broken Welcome Mat.” Follow Helen on Twitter @HRaleighspeaks, or check out her website: helenraleighspeaks.com.

]]>http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/pope-francis-just-validate-chinas-godless-communist-regime/feed/0http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/12/pope-francis-just-validate-chinas-godless-communist-regime/Can we be encouraged in our divided nation?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/eGYkL3bZLMk/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/can-encouraged-divided-nation/#respondThu, 17 Nov 2016 04:09:28 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=18883(By Evan Verbal, 1776 Scholar) On November 9, 2016, America woke up to some staggering news: Donald Trump had won the presidential election along with a Republican-backed Congress. This certainly caused some mixed reactions which included celebrations, tears, and riots. With almost a split popular vote, it’s clear that Americans are very politically divided. So

]]>(By Evan Verbal, 1776 Scholar) On November 9, 2016, America woke up to some staggering news: Donald Trump had won the presidential election along with a Republican-backed Congress. This certainly caused some mixed reactions which included celebrations, tears, and riots. With almost a split popular vote, it’s clear that Americans are very politically divided. So with considerable backlash in a divided country, are we headed for demise? I believe the answer is a resounding ‘no’ considering the reactions of a few leaders in each party.

President Elect Donald Trump, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama set an example of how to bridge the gap through their post-election behavior. To quote all three, Trump stated in his victory speech,

“Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.”

Now it may be easy for the winner to be cordial, but Hillary Clinton was remarkable in her comments as well:

“I still believe in America, and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power.”

Even President Obama who campaigned months on end for Hillary Clinton has stated:

“We are all rooting for his [Trump’s] success in uniting and leading the country.”

As a Republican, I can say that this post-election behavior by Secretary Clinton and President Obama is just as encouraging as the results of the election. These two leaders of the Democratic Party have realized that America is bigger than just a person or a party. America is a free nation that encourages us to flourish. I would hope that if Donald Trump lost the election that he would react the same way as President Obama and Secretary Clinton; Republicans have to empathize with those who are frustrated with the election results.

Though there may be riots in multiple cities and unprecedented backlash, America has to move forward. It’s okay to be legitimately concerned but not okay to allow one’s close-mindedness to inhibit the political process from occurring. Non-peaceful protests, childish name-calling, and an unwillingness to establish at least some common ground have divided this nation (and this can be seen among both Republicans and Democrats). So in order to move on, we have to be willing to talk to those that disagree with us. Ask your neighbor why they may have voted different than you, AND be willing to listen to their response! If this is not possible for you, then you are part of the problem. Though many of us are incredibly disillusioned by the three leaders mentioned above, let us take a lesson from them on how to begin binding the wounds of our divided Republic because America is bigger than two political parties, two unfavorable candidates, and a controversial election.

]]>http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/can-encouraged-divided-nation/feed/0http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/can-encouraged-divided-nation/Defending the importance of Christian educationhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/497sUvbULwk/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/defending-importance-christian-education/#commentsThu, 17 Nov 2016 04:06:06 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=18877(By Jameson Iiams, 1776 Scholar) Why does our country continue on a moral decline? Why are young people leaving the church at an alarming rate? Why is the church becoming more accepting of unbiblical beliefs like homosexual relationships and pre-marital sex? These are all questions that have been greatly studied and debated in recent years. I believe

]]>(By Jameson Iiams, 1776 Scholar) Why does our country continue on a moral decline? Why are young people leaving the church at an alarming rate? Why is the church becoming more accepting of unbiblical beliefs like homosexual relationships and pre-marital sex? These are all questions that have been greatly studied and debated in recent years. I believe that these problems within our culture are directly linked to the state of our education system. But there are so many great reasons of why sending kids to public school is just fine:

You could have a new car and bigger home. It’s true – Christian education is expensive. According to HowMuchIsIt.org the average cost of an Elementary Christian education is around $7,000 – $10,000 per school year and the cost of a High School Christian education is around $12,000 – $20,000 per school year. Even if you decide to homeschool your kids, there is a huge time commitment and requires a sacrifice on the part of the parents. And who wants to commit that kind of money and time? After all, they are only your children, not your 401K.

Let someone else handle your child’s worldview. It is much easier to drop your kids off every day at the state-run school where people with questionable values will spend hours on end with your children.

Public educators will help your children decide their sexuality. We have all heard the recent uproar from the secular community about how it is deplorable to tell someone they have to use the bathroom of their birth gender. This will now be accepted and taught in many public schools.

They get enough religion in Sunday School, right? Pastor Don Albright says, “Children who have Christian parents and have been raised in church, while spending their educational hours each day in a secular-humanistic public school system typically grow up to embrace the values of secular-humanism and reject the values of Christianity.” Some people assume that Christian schools are merely a regular school but with 5 days a week of chapel too. In actuality the Christian aspects and worldview is taught in all of the subjects. Math, Science, English, History and even PE are taught from a biblical perspective. Students are taught to fear God and respect His Word. This is something that is sorely lacking in the public schools today.

“I am much afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labour in explaining the Holy Scriptures, and engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which means are not unceasingly occupied with the Word of God must be corrupt.”

–Martin Luther

When we complain about the moral decline of our country, we need not look any further than our public school system. The fertile soil of our children’s ripe minds are planted with the weeds of a secular worldview instead of the seeds of a Christ-centered worldview. Parents should not sacrifice the well-being of their children’s mind and Christian future for the free education that the government is handing out.

]]>http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/defending-importance-christian-education/feed/2http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/defending-importance-christian-education/Don’t judge the Trump presidency before it beginshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/9RdJMY5S_uI/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/dont-judge-trump-presidency-begins/#commentsThu, 17 Nov 2016 04:01:02 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=18874(By Jaimie Erker, 1776 Scholar) “The event is the most deplorable one that has happened in the history of the country,” as reported by the Richmond Dispatch. The Mississippian’s headline read: “The Deed’s Done – Disunion the Remedy.” Perhaps the strongest language against this election could be found in the The Courier, stating that the election

]]>(By Jaimie Erker, 1776 Scholar) “The event is the most deplorable one that has happened in the history of the country,” as reported by the Richmond Dispatch. The Mississippian’s headline read: “The Deed’s Done – Disunion the Remedy.” Perhaps the strongest language against this election could be found in the The Courier, stating that the election results were caused “by the hordes of fanatics and negrophilists who have been flocking to his standards since the opening of the Presidential canvass…”

Do these sentiments sound like newspapers reporting the 2016 election? Think again: all of these are lines from articles reporting the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Lincoln ran in a four way presidential election, taking the presidency with 180 electoral votes and only 40% of the popular vote. Southerners felt as if the devil himself had been elected. He would free their slaves, effectively stealing their property. While Lincoln had run on a campaign promise to not change slavery where slavery already existed, the South demonized Lincoln’s abolitionist policies for undeclared states. Rumors swirled about the dangers of allowing African Americans to be free citizens in the United States. The South feared for the lives of their women and children with the abolitionist policies Lincoln advocated.

To the South, Lincoln’s election was the worst possible form of oppression.

Prior to Lincoln’s election, South Carolina had stated that they would secede from the Union if Lincoln became president and on December 20, 1860, South Carolina did just that. Lincoln had not even taken office. Tensions mounted, riots spread, and shots were fired, most prominently on April 12, 1861, with the firing on Ft. Sumter, marking the beginning of the Civil War.

Yet, today, Abraham Lincoln is viewed as one of the greatest presidents in American history.

America has a history of panicking over a president-elect. This fear is being manifested today. Since Election Day, cities across America have succumbed to protests and riots. People cry that Trump is going to destroy America. That they no longer feel safe. High schools have staged walk-outs; colleges have cancelled classes to help students “cope” with the devastation. California has even threatened secession. As of November 8, 2016, the Left has declared that it is the end of the world.

To the people who fear that a Trump presidency will be the “end of America:” the South had the same sentiments against the president-elect, and that led to a Civil War. America’s divisions today are deep, but we cannot afford to allow the tensions to continue.

The election is over: it is time to look forward.

Whether you are overjoyed or devastated that Trump is the president-elect, America as a whole must accept that he is the new president of the United States. It is time to look toward the next four years. Americans owe Trump the benefit of the doubt. For all we know, as Lincoln was in 1860, Trump may be what our country needs today.

It is time America moves past the emotions of this election. To those who are overjoyed; celebrate, but also acknowledge that he has a lot to accomplish. Go into his presidency hopeful, but also hold him accountable for his policies and actions. To those who are devastated; mourn, but release your anger. Anger increases division and digs at the wounds in the American landscape. Go into this new presidency with a hope that your worst fears won’t come to fruition, and work towards that end.

We are a democratic republic. The Electoral College has done its job and the institution itself is a means to protect the voice of the American people. Do not condemn the results of this election or demonize the institution of the Electoral College just because your candidate didn’t win.

America has been wrong about initial impressions of the president-elect before; let’s not repeat our past mistakes.

]]>http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/dont-judge-trump-presidency-begins/feed/4http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/dont-judge-trump-presidency-begins/American voters deliver a shocking super Brexithttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/y2P4-t1Edg0/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/american-voters-deliver-shocking-super-brexit/#commentsTue, 15 Nov 2016 02:36:07 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=18840(By Bill Moloney, '76 Contributor) (Boston) In an article written for the Denver Post (July 10,2016) entitled "Brexit Underscores Political and Economic Malaise of the West" I made the following observation: "Anybody who was anybody in politics, business, finance, academia, punditry, polling, and even bookmakers resolutely declared that Brexit shouldn't happen and wouldn't happen. Within living memory,

]]>(By Bill Moloney, ’76 Contributor) (Boston) In an article written for the Denver Post (July 10,2016) entitled “Brexit Underscores Political and Economic Malaise of the West” I made the following observation:

“Anybody who was anybody in politics, business, finance, academia, punditry, polling, and even bookmakers resolutely declared that Brexit shouldn’t happen and wouldn’t happen. Within living memory, never have so many been so wrong about so much.”

Substitute the phrase “a Trump victory” for the word “Brexit” and this paragraph aptly describes the political earthquake that occurred on November 8th.

The Reagan landslide of 1980 is the closest parallel in American history but in terms of sheer jaw dropping surprise even that fails comparison with the stunning upset achieved by Donald Trump.

Those whom the British call the “talking classes” are utterly baffled and at a loss to describe how and why this seismic event happened.

For perspective it is best to see this election as part of a “revolt of the masses” against globalization and in defense of national sovereignty that is occurring across the Western world.

Globalization has created a “New Economy” which has been great for society’s elites but deadly for the little guy. Wall St. loves it, but Main St. hates it.

The handmaiden of the New Economy is a “New Politics” which militates toward ever-greater centralization and the empowerment of unelected bureaucrats and bankers who arrogate to themselves authority to make rules and regulations for everybody else and effectively decide who will be the winners and losers in this “Brave New World”.

The similarities between the Brexit and Trump victories are striking in terms of the people, the issues, and the complete failure of the “Establishment” in both countries to see the upset coming.

On hearing of the Trump victory English commentator Julian Tollast said, “Oh, God, the media and the polls got it completely wrong again.” Professor Matthew Goodwin of the University of Kent observed, “Once again we have collectively failed to identify the frustration and anger among mainly white and less educated people regarding globalization and uncontrolled immigration.”

They also failed to gauge the intensity of feeling and the massive turnout it generated in the rural and Rust Belt regions of both countries.

Yet another similarity was the manner in which the parties of the Left- U.K. Labour and U.S. Democrats- were hugely deserted by their heretofore-loyal working class constituencies. Today both parties are reeling and groping for new identities in this radically transformed political environment.

The reverberations from these two elections are rippling all across Europe where previously “populism” and “nationalism” had been demonized by the Elites as “racist” and even “Fascist”. Suddenly these condescending attitudes are being reconsidered. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson “the prospect of being Hanged in the Morning (electorally speaking) concentrates the mind Wonderfully.”

What comes next in American politics depends on the answers to several questions that are simply unknowable at this early date. Can Mr. Trump work effectively with GOP Congressional leaders many of whom fled from his candidacy during the recent campaign? Will these same Congressional leaders see that they must meet Mr. Trump at least halfway on his key issues (e.g. trade, immigration) if they are to have any hope of passing meaningful legislation? Can Democrats in Congress notably the twenty-five Senators who are on the ballot in 2018 recognize why so many of their constituents voted for Mr. Trump and see the virtue of avoiding outright obstructionism? Can Mr. Trump who fancies himself “Negotiator” and “Deal-Maker” par excellence actually find an intelligent path in dealing with the host of foreign friends and foes who right now are urgently trying to figure him out.

All Americans should be heartened by the strikingly civil tones and cooperative themes evidenced in the first post-election speeches of Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton, and President Obama. In the end this election was not about the “tumult and shouting”, or even about the candidates, but about the American people who reminded us once again that the Great American Democracy remains in Lincoln’s immortal words a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

]]>http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/american-voters-deliver-shocking-super-brexit/feed/1http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/american-voters-deliver-shocking-super-brexit/Should the federal government force Americans to purchase Pintos?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/YWWrBqHBeI4/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/federal-government-force-americans-purchase-pintos/#commentsTue, 08 Nov 2016 20:20:06 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=18832(By Helen Raleigh, Centennial Fellow) What is a faulty product? It usually refers to a product which does not work as it is supposed to or promised to. For example, if your brand new toaster doesn't make a toast, it's a faulty product; or in the case of Ford Pinto, the brand has become almost

]]>(By Helen Raleigh, Centennial Fellow) What is a faulty product? It usually refers to a product which does not work as it is supposed to or promised to. For example, if your brand new toaster doesn’t make a toast, it’s a faulty product; or in the case of Ford Pinto, the brand has become almost synonymous with “faulty product” because its cars tended to erupt in flame in rear-end collisions due to its original design flaws. By such a definition, Obamacare is also a faulty product since it made a number of promises that it can’t keep or were known to be false, and now the American people are in a worse situation than before.
Let’s first examine how some of the main Obamacare promises turned out:

Promise number one- President Obama and his supporters promised that if we liked our existing health plans or if we liked our doctors, we could keep them. This turned out not to be true. Many Americans started to receive their policy cancellation letters from their insurance companies as soon as the implementation of Obamacare began. Back in 2013, NBC News reported that “50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law.” What made this even worse is that the Obama administration knew in July 2010 that this would happen but they kept on making these false promises to American people.

Promise number two- President Obama and his supporters promised that health care exchanges would offer those newly insured Americans more quality “choices.” However, in 2016, several insurance companies, including UnitedHealth, Humana and Aetna, have announced that they are pulling out of health exchanges in a number of states after losing millions of dollars, which left many Americans down to one or two health insurance providers.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation report estimates that “residents of 62 percent of the nation’s counties will have a choice of only one or two insurance carriers. Last year, only 32 percent of counties had so few choices.” If you are a resident of Pinal County in Arizona, you’re at risk of having no insurer options on the government-run health insurance exchange. A choice of one or nothing is not a choice at all.

Promise number three- President Obama and his supporters promised that Obamacare would increase health care “affordability” and push down health insurance premiums overall. As a matter of fact, President Obama was on record assuring Americans that Obamacare would lower health insurance premiums by $2,500 per American family. In fact, health insurance premiums have been going up for many Americans since the Obamacare’s implementation. But the worst is yet to come.

The administration’s own agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported recently that “premiums for health insurance plans sold on Obamacare exchanges are going up in 2017 more than they have in previous years—an average of 25 percent—that’s more than last year when premiums went up an average of 7.5 percent.” In Arizona, premiums will rise an astonishing 116%.

The defenders of Obamacare still claim that Obamacare did what it was supposed to by helping millions of previously uninsured Americans obtain health insurance. Here, the administration and its supporters are intentionally confusing two different concepts-“health care” vs. “health insurance.” Yes, more people have health insurance coverage now under Obamacare, but that’s doesn’t mean they have access to good and affordable health care. For example, one way for Obamacare to expand health insurance enrollment is by loading people into Medicaid. Studies have shown that people on Medicaid have health outcomes that are no better, and often worse, than those with no insurance at all.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has given American neither affordability, nor quality health care. Like the Ford Pinto, Obamacare had design flaws since its debut and has already set itself on fire. Had Obamacare been a private business venture, we as consumers would have already received product recall notice.

Private businesses have been very good at recalling any faulty products that have caused problems even on a very small sample. For example, in 2009, Toyota recalled more than eight million cars world-wide after a few accidents related to faulty accelerator pedal. The effort cost Toyota an estimated $3 billion. More recently, with the Samsung Galaxy Note 7, the company recalled all of more than 3 million devices it had sold, after some consumers reported incidents of their phone overheating and/or having exploding batteries. It’s estimated that the recall cost will exceed $6 billion. In addition to the recall, Samsung has taken the unprecedented step of scrapping Galaxy Note 7 from production.

It’s evident that private businesses have gone to extraordinary lengths to protect consumers from faulty products. It’s time for the federal government to follow the example set by private businesses and start the Obamacare “recall” (or in legal terms, repeal). If we all believe that the federal government has no business to force us to buy Pintos, why should we allow the federal government continues to force us to purchase a faulty product they created — Obamacare?

Yes, it will take time to repeal Obamacare. But the U.S. Congress should at least offer the American people an immediate relief by eliminating the individual mandate penalty. Americans shouldn’t be penalized for not wanting to purchase a Pinto like product.

]]>http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/federal-government-force-americans-purchase-pintos/feed/1http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/federal-government-force-americans-purchase-pintos/No on Prop 106: Keep Government Out of End-of-Life Decisionshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/76Blog/~3/jd_cO_2wj5Y/
http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/2016/11/no-prop-106-keep-government-end-life-decisions/#respondTue, 08 Nov 2016 20:16:09 +0000http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/?p=18829(By Jeff Hunt) Proponents of Proposition 106, legalizing doctor-assisted suicide, claim the law has worked well in Oregon and other states. It’s simply not true. If proponents told the truth, Proposition 106 would go down in flames. Here’s the truth, legalizing doctor-assisted suicide opens the door for insurance companies and the government to get involved

]]>(By Jeff Hunt) Proponents of Proposition 106, legalizing doctor-assisted suicide, claim the law has worked well in Oregon and other states. It’s simply not true. If proponents told the truth, Proposition 106 would go down in flames. Here’s the truth, legalizing doctor-assisted suicide opens the door for insurance companies and the government to get involved with everyone’s end-of-life decisions. In fact, in states where doctor-assisted suicide is legal, insurance companies are already denying more expensive lifesaving medications on a regular basis, offering instead to cover the cost of a doctor-assisted suicide.

Consider Stephanie Packer of California, the 33 year-old mother of four, who was denied a life-extending chemotherapy drug, but was approved for the $1.20 co-pay for doctor-assisted suicide drugs. Or Barbara Wagner of Oregon who was denied lifesaving drugs prescribed by her doctor but received a letter encouraging her to explore doctor-assisted suicide by the Oregon Health Plan. Or physician Dr. William Toffler of Oregon who regularly sees more expensive life-extending drugs rejected by insurance companies but doctor-assisted suicide drugs always covered.

Proposition 106 has no protections against insurance companies or the government denying lifesaving treatment to patients who want nothing to do with doctor-assisted suicide. Similar laws in other states have given insurance companies and the government the power to choose who will live and who will die.

Insurance companies in Colorado have already raised health-insurance rates by an average of 20% for individual buyers for 2017. In rural parts of Colorado, premiums will jump by 40%. It is estimated that 92,000 people, nearly one in five Coloradans will have to shop for new insurance as insurance companies leave the Obamacare exchange. It’s clear that medical insurance costs are going up and coverage is going down. Now doctor-assisted suicide could be an option for insurance companies and the government to reduce coverage and cut costs.

Time and time again, people who want nothing to do with doctor-assisted suicide are forced to consider it because insurance companies deny the more expensive lifesaving drugs. What kind of choice is it for Coloradans when the option to live is removed? Doctor-assisted suicide removes the choice to live from too many people.

Coloradans should not support the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide. Bottom line, Proposition 106 gives insurance companies and the government more power over everyone’s end-of-life decisions. This is clear – we must reject Proposition 106.